Pathway Summary
Consort map
Demographic information
## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'fam_income', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::fisher.test(c("20001_above", "10001_12000", "4001_6000", : FEXACT 錯誤碼 7(location). LDSTP=18600 對此問題而言太小，
## (pastp=70.1671, ipn_0:=ipoin[itp=71]=1, stp[ipn_0]=69.9036).
## 請增加工作空間或考慮使用 'simulate.p.value=TRUE'## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'diagnosis_substance_drug_induced_psychotic', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::chisq.test(x = c("no", "no", "no", "no", "no", "no", "no", : 'x' and 'y' must have at least 2 levelsCharacteristic | N | Overall, N = 2501 | control, N = 1251 | treatment, N = 1251 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 250 | 51.17 ± 13.17 (23 - 75) | 50.68 ± 13.45 (23 - 75) | 51.66 ± 12.92 (28 - 75) | 0.559 |
gender | 250 | 0.327 | |||
f | 204 (82%) | 99 (79%) | 105 (84%) | ||
m | 46 (18%) | 26 (21%) | 20 (16%) | ||
occupation | 250 | 0.711 | |||
day_training | 6 (2.4%) | 2 (1.6%) | 4 (3.2%) | ||
full_time | 29 (12%) | 14 (11%) | 15 (12%) | ||
homemaker | 32 (13%) | 15 (12%) | 17 (14%) | ||
other | 4 (1.6%) | 1 (0.8%) | 3 (2.4%) | ||
part_time | 43 (17%) | 23 (18%) | 20 (16%) | ||
retired | 61 (24%) | 28 (22%) | 33 (26%) | ||
self_employ | 8 (3.2%) | 4 (3.2%) | 4 (3.2%) | ||
shelter | 4 (1.6%) | 4 (3.2%) | 0 (0%) | ||
student | 4 (1.6%) | 2 (1.6%) | 2 (1.6%) | ||
t_and_e | 4 (1.6%) | 3 (2.4%) | 1 (0.8%) | ||
unemploy | 55 (22%) | 29 (23%) | 26 (21%) | ||
marital | 250 | 0.776 | |||
cohabitation | 2 (0.8%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (1.6%) | ||
divore | 27 (11%) | 15 (12%) | 12 (9.6%) | ||
in_relationship | 6 (2.4%) | 4 (3.2%) | 2 (1.6%) | ||
married | 76 (30%) | 35 (28%) | 41 (33%) | ||
none | 117 (47%) | 59 (47%) | 58 (46%) | ||
seperation | 3 (1.2%) | 2 (1.6%) | 1 (0.8%) | ||
widow | 19 (7.6%) | 10 (8.0%) | 9 (7.2%) | ||
edu | 250 | 0.690 | |||
bachelor | 54 (22%) | 24 (19%) | 30 (24%) | ||
diploma | 42 (17%) | 25 (20%) | 17 (14%) | ||
hd_ad | 6 (2.4%) | 4 (3.2%) | 2 (1.6%) | ||
none | 1 (0.4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.8%) | ||
postgraduate | 17 (6.8%) | 9 (7.2%) | 8 (6.4%) | ||
primary | 22 (8.8%) | 9 (7.2%) | 13 (10%) | ||
secondary_1_3 | 29 (12%) | 17 (14%) | 12 (9.6%) | ||
secondary_4_5 | 66 (26%) | 31 (25%) | 35 (28%) | ||
secondary_6_7 | 13 (5.2%) | 6 (4.8%) | 7 (5.6%) | ||
fam_income | 250 | ||||
10001_12000 | 10 (4.0%) | 3 (2.4%) | 7 (5.6%) | ||
12001_14000 | 12 (4.8%) | 4 (3.2%) | 8 (6.4%) | ||
14001_16000 | 12 (4.8%) | 4 (3.2%) | 8 (6.4%) | ||
16001_18000 | 5 (2.0%) | 3 (2.4%) | 2 (1.6%) | ||
18001_20000 | 12 (4.8%) | 8 (6.4%) | 4 (3.2%) | ||
20001_above | 43 (17%) | 26 (21%) | 17 (14%) | ||
2001_4000 | 37 (15%) | 18 (14%) | 19 (15%) | ||
4001_6000 | 31 (12%) | 14 (11%) | 17 (14%) | ||
6001_8000 | 22 (8.8%) | 13 (10%) | 9 (7.2%) | ||
8001_10000 | 20 (8.0%) | 11 (8.8%) | 9 (7.2%) | ||
below_2000 | 46 (18%) | 21 (17%) | 25 (20%) | ||
medication | 250 | 224 (90%) | 112 (90%) | 112 (90%) | >0.999 |
onset_duration | 250 | 15.12 ± 11.18 (0 - 63) | 14.96 ± 11.83 (0 - 56) | 15.29 ± 10.53 (0 - 63) | 0.817 |
onset_age | 250 | 36.05 ± 14.81 (-18 - 72) | 35.72 ± 13.96 (10 - 72) | 36.37 ± 15.66 (-18 - 68) | 0.730 |
diagnosis_schizophrenia | 250 | 50 (20%) | 25 (20%) | 25 (20%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_delusional | 250 | 13 (5.2%) | 7 (5.6%) | 6 (4.8%) | 0.776 |
diagnosis_schizoaffective | 250 | 1 (0.4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.8%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_schizoid | 250 | 1 (0.4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.8%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_transient_psychotic | 250 | 2 (0.8%) | 1 (0.8%) | 1 (0.8%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_substance_drug_induced_psychotic | 250 | ||||
no | 250 (100%) | 125 (100%) | 125 (100%) | ||
diagnosis_depression | 250 | 138 (55%) | 69 (55%) | 69 (55%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_bipolar | 250 | 24 (9.6%) | 10 (8.0%) | 14 (11%) | 0.390 |
diagnosis_anxiety | 250 | 87 (35%) | 46 (37%) | 41 (33%) | 0.507 |
diagnosis_phobia | 250 | 10 (4.0%) | 3 (2.4%) | 7 (5.6%) | 0.197 |
diagnosis_personality_disorders | 250 | 3 (1.2%) | 0 (0%) | 3 (2.4%) | 0.247 |
diagnosis_substance_related_addictive | 250 | 1 (0.4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.8%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_other | 250 | 29 (12%) | 17 (14%) | 12 (9.6%) | 0.323 |
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Table
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 2501 | control, N = 1251 | treatment, N = 1251 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | 250 | 3.14 ± 1.21 (1 - 5) | 3.20 ± 1.20 (1 - 5) | 3.07 ± 1.23 (1 - 5) | 0.406 |
recovery_stage_b | 250 | 17.84 ± 3.03 (4 - 24) | 17.88 ± 3.28 (4 - 24) | 17.80 ± 2.78 (9 - 24) | 0.835 |
ras_confidence | 250 | 29.86 ± 5.62 (9 - 45) | 29.69 ± 5.78 (9 - 45) | 30.02 ± 5.47 (9 - 45) | 0.637 |
ras_willingness | 250 | 11.64 ± 2.11 (3 - 15) | 11.62 ± 2.08 (5 - 15) | 11.66 ± 2.14 (3 - 15) | 0.905 |
ras_goal | 250 | 17.36 ± 3.32 (5 - 25) | 17.18 ± 3.30 (5 - 25) | 17.53 ± 3.33 (5 - 25) | 0.413 |
ras_reliance | 250 | 13.24 ± 2.88 (4 - 20) | 13.14 ± 2.81 (5 - 20) | 13.33 ± 2.95 (4 - 20) | 0.614 |
ras_domination | 250 | 9.76 ± 2.45 (3 - 15) | 9.95 ± 2.43 (3 - 15) | 9.56 ± 2.46 (3 - 15) | 0.206 |
symptom | 250 | 30.85 ± 9.83 (14 - 70) | 31.50 ± 10.44 (14 - 70) | 30.21 ± 9.18 (14 - 56) | 0.301 |
slof_work | 250 | 22.06 ± 4.64 (10 - 30) | 22.06 ± 4.44 (12 - 30) | 22.06 ± 4.86 (10 - 30) | 0.989 |
slof_relationship | 250 | 24.92 ± 5.79 (9 - 35) | 24.50 ± 5.77 (9 - 35) | 25.34 ± 5.79 (11 - 35) | 0.252 |
satisfaction | 250 | 20.35 ± 7.25 (5 - 35) | 19.66 ± 7.28 (5 - 35) | 21.03 ± 7.18 (5 - 35) | 0.136 |
mhc_emotional | 250 | 10.82 ± 3.75 (3 - 19) | 10.65 ± 3.79 (3 - 18) | 11.00 ± 3.71 (3 - 19) | 0.459 |
mhc_social | 250 | 15.13 ± 6.02 (5 - 30) | 15.13 ± 6.09 (5 - 30) | 15.13 ± 5.97 (5 - 30) | >0.999 |
mhc_psychological | 250 | 21.71 ± 6.90 (6 - 36) | 21.55 ± 6.89 (6 - 36) | 21.87 ± 6.93 (6 - 36) | 0.715 |
resilisnce | 250 | 16.56 ± 4.44 (6 - 30) | 16.18 ± 4.25 (6 - 30) | 16.94 ± 4.61 (6 - 30) | 0.177 |
social_provision | 250 | 13.54 ± 2.75 (5 - 20) | 13.17 ± 2.70 (5 - 20) | 13.91 ± 2.77 (5 - 20) | 0.032 |
els_value_living | 250 | 16.96 ± 3.18 (5 - 25) | 16.76 ± 3.18 (6 - 25) | 17.15 ± 3.19 (5 - 25) | 0.331 |
els_life_fulfill | 250 | 12.76 ± 3.35 (4 - 20) | 12.41 ± 3.45 (4 - 20) | 13.10 ± 3.21 (4 - 20) | 0.100 |
els | 250 | 29.71 ± 6.03 (9 - 45) | 29.17 ± 6.13 (11 - 45) | 30.26 ± 5.90 (9 - 45) | 0.154 |
social_connect | 250 | 27.27 ± 9.12 (8 - 48) | 27.88 ± 9.05 (8 - 48) | 26.66 ± 9.18 (8 - 48) | 0.293 |
shs_agency | 250 | 14.34 ± 4.99 (3 - 24) | 13.84 ± 5.02 (3 - 24) | 14.85 ± 4.94 (3 - 24) | 0.110 |
shs_pathway | 250 | 15.83 ± 4.19 (3 - 24) | 15.33 ± 4.35 (3 - 24) | 16.34 ± 3.99 (4 - 24) | 0.057 |
shs | 250 | 30.18 ± 8.79 (6 - 48) | 29.17 ± 8.98 (6 - 48) | 31.18 ± 8.51 (7 - 48) | 0.070 |
esteem | 250 | 12.76 ± 1.66 (9 - 20) | 12.80 ± 1.71 (9 - 20) | 12.73 ± 1.60 (10 - 20) | 0.732 |
mlq_search | 250 | 14.72 ± 3.51 (3 - 21) | 14.36 ± 3.58 (3 - 21) | 15.08 ± 3.41 (3 - 21) | 0.105 |
mlq_presence | 250 | 13.38 ± 4.31 (3 - 21) | 13.15 ± 4.26 (3 - 21) | 13.62 ± 4.36 (3 - 21) | 0.396 |
mlq | 250 | 28.10 ± 7.01 (6 - 42) | 27.51 ± 7.05 (6 - 42) | 28.70 ± 6.96 (6 - 42) | 0.183 |
empower | 250 | 19.11 ± 4.47 (6 - 30) | 18.85 ± 4.50 (6 - 30) | 19.38 ± 4.44 (6 - 30) | 0.351 |
ismi_resistance | 250 | 14.36 ± 2.60 (5 - 20) | 14.36 ± 2.52 (6 - 20) | 14.35 ± 2.70 (5 - 20) | 0.981 |
ismi_discrimation | 250 | 11.75 ± 3.10 (5 - 20) | 11.79 ± 3.09 (5 - 20) | 11.70 ± 3.12 (5 - 20) | 0.823 |
sss_affective | 250 | 10.51 ± 3.66 (3 - 18) | 10.40 ± 3.63 (3 - 18) | 10.62 ± 3.71 (3 - 18) | 0.629 |
sss_behavior | 250 | 10.14 ± 3.76 (3 - 18) | 10.18 ± 3.81 (3 - 18) | 10.10 ± 3.72 (3 - 18) | 0.867 |
sss_cognitive | 250 | 8.92 ± 3.84 (3 - 18) | 8.71 ± 3.82 (3 - 18) | 9.12 ± 3.87 (3 - 18) | 0.402 |
sss | 250 | 29.56 ± 10.61 (9 - 54) | 29.29 ± 10.63 (9 - 54) | 29.84 ± 10.63 (9 - 54) | 0.682 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Plot
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | (Intercept) | 3.20 | 0.108 | 2.99, 3.41 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.128 | 0.153 | -0.429, 0.173 | 0.404 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.040 | 0.144 | -0.243, 0.322 | 0.783 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.311 | 0.207 | -0.095, 0.718 | 0.135 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
recovery_stage_b | (Intercept) | 17.9 | 0.272 | 17.3, 18.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.080 | 0.385 | -0.834, 0.674 | 0.835 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.164 | 0.275 | -0.704, 0.375 | 0.552 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.835 | 0.397 | 0.057, 1.61 | 0.037 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
ras_confidence | (Intercept) | 29.7 | 0.509 | 28.7, 30.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.336 | 0.719 | -1.07, 1.75 | 0.641 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.739 | 0.466 | -0.174, 1.65 | 0.115 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.26 | 0.672 | -0.059, 2.58 | 0.063 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.020 | ||||
ras_willingness | (Intercept) | 11.6 | 0.187 | 11.3, 12.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.032 | 0.264 | -0.486, 0.550 | 0.904 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.071 | 0.202 | -0.325, 0.468 | 0.724 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.325 | 0.291 | -0.246, 0.896 | 0.266 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
ras_goal | (Intercept) | 17.2 | 0.297 | 16.6, 17.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.344 | 0.420 | -0.478, 1.17 | 0.413 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.328 | 0.295 | -0.250, 0.906 | 0.268 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.546 | 0.425 | -0.288, 1.38 | 0.201 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
ras_reliance | (Intercept) | 13.1 | 0.262 | 12.6, 13.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.184 | 0.371 | -0.542, 0.910 | 0.620 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.266 | 0.248 | -0.219, 0.751 | 0.284 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.555 | 0.357 | -0.144, 1.25 | 0.122 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
ras_domination | (Intercept) | 9.95 | 0.218 | 9.52, 10.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.392 | 0.309 | -0.997, 0.213 | 0.205 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.029 | 0.247 | -0.455, 0.513 | 0.908 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.857 | 0.356 | 0.159, 1.55 | 0.017 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
symptom | (Intercept) | 31.5 | 0.878 | 29.8, 33.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.29 | 1.242 | -3.72, 1.15 | 0.301 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.09 | 0.771 | -2.60, 0.416 | 0.158 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.304 | 1.111 | -2.48, 1.87 | 0.785 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
slof_work | (Intercept) | 22.1 | 0.411 | 21.3, 22.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.008 | 0.581 | -1.15, 1.13 | 0.989 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.318 | 0.398 | -0.462, 1.10 | 0.426 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.419 | 0.574 | -0.706, 1.54 | 0.466 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
slof_relationship | (Intercept) | 24.5 | 0.515 | 23.5, 25.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.840 | 0.728 | -0.587, 2.27 | 0.249 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.036 | 0.496 | -1.01, 0.935 | 0.942 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.755 | 0.714 | -0.645, 2.16 | 0.292 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
satisfaction | (Intercept) | 19.7 | 0.648 | 18.4, 20.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.37 | 0.916 | -0.427, 3.16 | 0.136 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.935 | 0.599 | -0.238, 2.11 | 0.120 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.261 | 0.863 | -1.43, 1.95 | 0.763 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
mhc_emotional | (Intercept) | 10.6 | 0.334 | 9.99, 11.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.352 | 0.472 | -0.573, 1.28 | 0.456 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.410 | 0.287 | -0.154, 0.973 | 0.156 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.155 | 0.415 | -0.967, 0.658 | 0.710 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
mhc_social | (Intercept) | 15.1 | 0.547 | 14.1, 16.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.000 | 0.774 | -1.52, 1.52 | 1.00 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.707 | 0.489 | -0.252, 1.67 | 0.151 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.007 | 0.706 | -1.39, 1.38 | 0.992 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
mhc_psychological | (Intercept) | 21.6 | 0.633 | 20.3, 22.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.320 | 0.895 | -1.43, 2.07 | 0.721 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.07 | 0.569 | -0.048, 2.18 | 0.063 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.348 | 0.820 | -1.96, 1.26 | 0.672 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
resilisnce | (Intercept) | 16.2 | 0.393 | 15.4, 16.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.760 | 0.556 | -0.329, 1.85 | 0.172 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.786 | 0.396 | 0.010, 1.56 | 0.049 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.738 | 0.570 | -0.380, 1.86 | 0.198 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.030 | ||||
social_provision | (Intercept) | 13.2 | 0.252 | 12.7, 13.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.744 | 0.356 | 0.046, 1.44 | 0.038 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.156 | 0.253 | -0.651, 0.339 | 0.539 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.490 | 0.364 | -0.223, 1.20 | 0.180 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.028 | ||||
els_value_living | (Intercept) | 16.8 | 0.287 | 16.2, 17.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.392 | 0.405 | -0.402, 1.19 | 0.334 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.370 | 0.279 | -0.177, 0.917 | 0.187 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.324 | 0.403 | -0.465, 1.11 | 0.422 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
els_life_fulfill | (Intercept) | 12.4 | 0.297 | 11.8, 13.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.696 | 0.420 | -0.127, 1.52 | 0.098 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.268 | 0.272 | -0.264, 0.801 | 0.324 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.304 | 0.392 | -0.464, 1.07 | 0.439 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
els | (Intercept) | 29.2 | 0.542 | 28.1, 30.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.09 | 0.766 | -0.413, 2.59 | 0.157 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.654 | 0.476 | -0.278, 1.59 | 0.171 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.603 | 0.686 | -0.741, 1.95 | 0.380 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.017 | ||||
social_connect | (Intercept) | 27.9 | 0.826 | 26.3, 29.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.22 | 1.168 | -3.50, 1.07 | 0.299 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.301 | 0.707 | -1.69, 1.08 | 0.671 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.72 | 1.020 | -4.72, -0.723 | 0.008 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.026 | ||||
shs_agency | (Intercept) | 13.8 | 0.452 | 13.0, 14.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.01 | 0.639 | -0.244, 2.26 | 0.116 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.405 | 0.387 | -0.353, 1.16 | 0.296 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.411 | 0.558 | -0.682, 1.50 | 0.462 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.016 | ||||
shs_pathway | (Intercept) | 15.3 | 0.366 | 14.6, 16.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.01 | 0.517 | -0.005, 2.02 | 0.052 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.663 | 0.343 | -0.010, 1.34 | 0.055 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.169 | 0.495 | -0.800, 1.14 | 0.732 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.024 | ||||
shs | (Intercept) | 29.2 | 0.779 | 27.6, 30.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.02 | 1.102 | -0.143, 4.18 | 0.068 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.07 | 0.668 | -0.238, 2.38 | 0.111 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.567 | 0.963 | -1.32, 2.45 | 0.557 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.021 | ||||
esteem | (Intercept) | 12.8 | 0.141 | 12.5, 13.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.072 | 0.200 | -0.463, 0.319 | 0.719 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.134 | 0.182 | -0.491, 0.222 | 0.461 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.084 | 0.262 | -0.429, 0.596 | 0.749 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.001 | ||||
mlq_search | (Intercept) | 14.4 | 0.310 | 13.8, 15.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.720 | 0.438 | -0.139, 1.58 | 0.101 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.896 | 0.346 | 0.218, 1.57 | 0.010 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.796 | 0.499 | -1.77, 0.181 | 0.112 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
mlq_presence | (Intercept) | 13.2 | 0.381 | 12.4, 13.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.464 | 0.538 | -0.591, 1.52 | 0.389 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.926 | 0.394 | 0.154, 1.70 | 0.020 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.102 | 0.568 | -1.22, 1.01 | 0.858 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
mlq | (Intercept) | 27.5 | 0.625 | 26.3, 28.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.18 | 0.884 | -0.549, 2.92 | 0.181 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.82 | 0.659 | 0.531, 3.11 | 0.006 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.891 | 0.950 | -2.75, 0.971 | 0.349 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
empower | (Intercept) | 18.8 | 0.405 | 18.1, 19.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.528 | 0.573 | -0.595, 1.65 | 0.358 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.942 | 0.386 | 0.186, 1.70 | 0.016 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.272 | 0.556 | -1.36, 0.818 | 0.625 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
ismi_resistance | (Intercept) | 14.4 | 0.229 | 13.9, 14.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.008 | 0.324 | -0.643, 0.627 | 0.980 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.300 | 0.274 | -0.237, 0.838 | 0.275 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.580 | 0.395 | -0.194, 1.35 | 0.144 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.016 | ||||
ismi_discrimation | (Intercept) | 11.8 | 0.278 | 11.2, 12.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.088 | 0.392 | -0.857, 0.681 | 0.823 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.465 | 0.322 | -1.10, 0.167 | 0.151 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.608 | 0.464 | -1.52, 0.302 | 0.192 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
sss_affective | (Intercept) | 10.4 | 0.328 | 9.76, 11.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.224 | 0.464 | -0.685, 1.13 | 0.630 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.418 | 0.308 | -1.02, 0.185 | 0.176 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.703 | 0.444 | -1.57, 0.166 | 0.115 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
sss_behavior | (Intercept) | 10.2 | 0.334 | 9.52, 10.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.080 | 0.473 | -1.01, 0.846 | 0.866 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.679 | 0.305 | -1.28, -0.082 | 0.027 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.094 | 0.439 | -0.955, 0.768 | 0.832 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
sss_cognitive | (Intercept) | 8.71 | 0.335 | 8.06, 9.37 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.408 | 0.473 | -0.519, 1.34 | 0.389 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.530 | 0.308 | -1.13, 0.074 | 0.087 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.599 | 0.444 | -1.47, 0.271 | 0.179 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
sss | (Intercept) | 29.3 | 0.939 | 27.4, 31.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.552 | 1.328 | -2.05, 3.16 | 0.678 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.60 | 0.788 | -3.14, -0.054 | 0.044 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.34 | 1.136 | -3.57, 0.884 | 0.239 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
recovery_stage_a
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.40) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.57e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.20 (95% CI [2.99, 3.41], t(388) = 29.52, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.17], t(388) = -0.83, p = 0.404; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.14])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.32], t(388) = 0.28, p = 0.783; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.72], t(388) = 1.50, p = 0.134; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.59])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
recovery_stage_b
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.11e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.88 (95% CI [17.35, 18.41], t(388) = 65.71, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.67], t(388) = -0.21, p = 0.835; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.22])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.70, 0.38], t(388) = -0.60, p = 0.551; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.12])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [0.06, 1.61], t(388) = 2.10, p = 0.035; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [0.02, 0.54])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_confidence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.69 (95% CI [28.69, 30.68], t(388) = 58.36, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-1.07, 1.75], t(388) = 0.47, p = 0.640; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-0.17, 1.65], t(388) = 1.59, p = 0.113; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.26, 95% CI [-0.06, 2.58], t(388) = 1.87, p = 0.061; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.45])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_willingness
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.41e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.62 (95% CI [11.26, 11.99], t(388) = 62.18, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.55], t(388) = 0.12, p = 0.904; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.26])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.47], t(388) = 0.35, p = 0.724; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.22])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.90], t(388) = 1.12, p = 0.264; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.43])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_goal
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.18 (95% CI [16.60, 17.77], t(388) = 57.92, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.48, 1.17], t(388) = 0.82, p = 0.412; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.35])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.91], t(388) = 1.11, p = 0.267; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-0.29, 1.38], t(388) = 1.28, p = 0.199; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.42])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_reliance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.14 (95% CI [12.63, 13.66], t(388) = 50.15, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.91], t(388) = 0.50, p = 0.620; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.31])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.75], t(388) = 1.07, p = 0.282; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.56, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.25], t(388) = 1.56, p = 0.120; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.42])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_domination
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.95 (95% CI [9.52, 10.38], t(388) = 45.59, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-1.00, 0.21], t(388) = -1.27, p = 0.204; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.09])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.51], t(388) = 0.12, p = 0.907; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.21])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [0.16, 1.55], t(388) = 2.41, p = 0.016; Std. beta = 0.35, 95% CI [0.07, 0.64])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
symptom
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.62e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.50 (95% CI [29.77, 33.22], t(388) = 35.87, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.29, 95% CI [-3.72, 1.15], t(388) = -1.04, p = 0.300; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.12])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.09, 95% CI [-2.60, 0.42], t(388) = -1.42, p = 0.155; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.04])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-2.48, 1.87], t(388) = -0.27, p = 0.784; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.19])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_work
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.69e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.06 (95% CI [21.26, 22.87], t(388) = 53.72, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -8.00e-03, 95% CI [-1.15, 1.13], t(388) = -0.01, p = 0.989; Std. beta = -1.73e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.24])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.46, 1.10], t(388) = 0.80, p = 0.424; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.24])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-0.71, 1.54], t(388) = 0.73, p = 0.465; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.33])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_relationship
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.50 (95% CI [23.50, 25.51], t(388) = 47.61, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [-0.59, 2.27], t(388) = 1.15, p = 0.248; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.39])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-1.01, 0.94], t(388) = -0.07, p = 0.942; Std. beta = -6.19e-03, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.16])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-0.65, 2.16], t(388) = 1.06, p = 0.290; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.37])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
satisfaction
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.66 (95% CI [18.39, 20.93], t(388) = 30.37, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.37, 95% CI [-0.43, 3.16], t(388) = 1.49, p = 0.135; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.43])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.93, 95% CI [-0.24, 2.11], t(388) = 1.56, p = 0.118; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-1.43, 1.95], t(388) = 0.30, p = 0.763; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.27])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_emotional
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.46e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.65 (95% CI [9.99, 11.30], t(388) = 31.90, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.57, 1.28], t(388) = 0.75, p = 0.456; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.34])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.97], t(388) = 1.43, p = 0.154; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.97, 0.66], t(388) = -0.37, p = 0.709; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.18])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_social
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.06e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.13 (95% CI [14.06, 16.20], t(388) = 27.63, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.84e-13, 95% CI [-1.52, 1.52], t(388) = 2.38e-13, p > .999; Std. beta = 9.84e-16, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.25])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-0.25, 1.67], t(388) = 1.44, p = 0.149; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.28])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -7.44e-03, 95% CI [-1.39, 1.38], t(388) = -0.01, p = 0.992; Std. beta = -1.24e-03, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.23])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_psychological
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.02e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.55 (95% CI [20.31, 22.79], t(388) = 34.05, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-1.43, 2.07], t(388) = 0.36, p = 0.721; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.30])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.07, 95% CI [-0.05, 2.18], t(388) = 1.88, p = 0.061; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-6.87e-03, 0.31])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-1.96, 1.26], t(388) = -0.42, p = 0.672; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.18])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
resilisnce
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.18 (95% CI [15.41, 16.95], t(388) = 41.18, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-0.33, 1.85], t(388) = 1.37, p = 0.171; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.41])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.79, 95% CI [0.01, 1.56], t(388) = 1.99, p = 0.047; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [2.33e-03, 0.35])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-0.38, 1.86], t(388) = 1.29, p = 0.196; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.42])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_provision
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.17 (95% CI [12.67, 13.66], t(388) = 52.27, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [0.05, 1.44], t(388) = 2.09, p = 0.037; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [0.02, 0.50])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.34], t(388) = -0.62, p = 0.538; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.12])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.22, 1.20], t(388) = 1.35, p = 0.178; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.42])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_value_living
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.76 (95% CI [16.20, 17.32], t(388) = 58.47, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.40, 1.19], t(388) = 0.97, p = 0.334; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.37])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.92], t(388) = 1.33, p = 0.185; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.28])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.47, 1.11], t(388) = 0.80, p = 0.421; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.35])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_life_fulfill
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.41 (95% CI [11.83, 12.99], t(388) = 41.81, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.70, 95% CI [-0.13, 1.52], t(388) = 1.66, p = 0.097; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.45])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.80], t(388) = 0.99, p = 0.323; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.24])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.46, 1.07], t(388) = 0.78, p = 0.438; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.32])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.17 (95% CI [28.11, 30.23], t(388) = 53.86, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.09, 95% CI [-0.41, 2.59], t(388) = 1.42, p = 0.155; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.42])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.65, 95% CI [-0.28, 1.59], t(388) = 1.38, p = 0.169; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.60, 95% CI [-0.74, 1.95], t(388) = 0.88, p = 0.379; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.32])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_connect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.88 (95% CI [26.26, 29.50], t(388) = 33.76, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.22, 95% CI [-3.50, 1.07], t(388) = -1.04, p = 0.298; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.11])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-1.69, 1.08], t(388) = -0.43, p = 0.670; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.12])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -2.72, 95% CI [-4.72, -0.72], t(388) = -2.67, p = 0.008; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.50, -0.08])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_agency
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.84 (95% CI [12.95, 14.73], t(388) = 30.64, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [-0.24, 2.26], t(388) = 1.58, p = 0.115; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.44])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.35, 1.16], t(388) = 1.05, p = 0.295; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.23])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.68, 1.50], t(388) = 0.74, p = 0.461; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.29])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_pathway
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.33 (95% CI [14.61, 16.04], t(388) = 41.93, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [-5.32e-03, 2.02], t(388) = 1.95, p = 0.051; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-1.28e-03, 0.49])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-9.57e-03, 1.34], t(388) = 1.93, p = 0.053; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-2.31e-03, 0.32])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.80, 1.14], t(388) = 0.34, p = 0.732; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.27])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.17 (95% CI [27.64, 30.69], t(388) = 37.45, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.02, 95% CI [-0.14, 4.18], t(388) = 1.83, p = 0.067; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.47])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.07, 95% CI [-0.24, 2.38], t(388) = 1.60, p = 0.109; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-1.32, 2.45], t(388) = 0.59, p = 0.556; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.28])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
esteem
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.44) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.14e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.80 (95% CI [12.52, 13.08], t(388) = 90.68, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.32], t(388) = -0.36, p = 0.718; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.20])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.22], t(388) = -0.74, p = 0.460; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.14])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.60], t(388) = 0.32, p = 0.749; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.38])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_search
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.60) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.36 (95% CI [13.75, 14.97], t(388) = 46.36, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.58], t(388) = 1.64, p = 0.100; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.45])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.90, 95% CI [0.22, 1.57], t(388) = 2.59, p = 0.010; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [0.06, 0.45])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.80, 95% CI [-1.77, 0.18], t(388) = -1.60, p = 0.110; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.05])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_presence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.15 (95% CI [12.41, 13.90], t(388) = 34.56, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.59, 1.52], t(388) = 0.86, p = 0.389; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.93, 95% CI [0.15, 1.70], t(388) = 2.35, p = 0.019; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [0.04, 0.40])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-1.22, 1.01], t(388) = -0.18, p = 0.857; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.24])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.51 (95% CI [26.29, 28.74], t(388) = 44.01, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.18, 95% CI [-0.55, 2.92], t(388) = 1.34, p = 0.180; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.41])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.82, 95% CI [0.53, 3.11], t(388) = 2.76, p = 0.006; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [0.08, 0.44])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.89, 95% CI [-2.75, 0.97], t(388) = -0.94, p = 0.348; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.14])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
empower
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.62e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.85 (95% CI [18.05, 19.64], t(388) = 46.52, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.60, 1.65], t(388) = 0.92, p = 0.357; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.37])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.94, 95% CI [0.19, 1.70], t(388) = 2.44, p = 0.015; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [0.04, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-1.36, 0.82], t(388) = -0.49, p = 0.625; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.18])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_resistance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.53) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.36 (95% CI [13.91, 14.81], t(388) = 62.72, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -8.00e-03, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.63], t(388) = -0.02, p = 0.980; Std. beta = -3.11e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.24])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.84], t(388) = 1.10, p = 0.273; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.33])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.58, 95% CI [-0.19, 1.35], t(388) = 1.47, p = 0.142; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.53])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_discrimation
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.56) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.79 (95% CI [11.25, 12.34], t(388) = 42.49, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.86, 0.68], t(388) = -0.22, p = 0.823; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.22])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-1.10, 0.17], t(388) = -1.44, p = 0.149; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.05])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.61, 95% CI [-1.52, 0.30], t(388) = -1.31, p = 0.190; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.10])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_affective
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.40 (95% CI [9.76, 11.04], t(388) = 31.70, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.69, 1.13], t(388) = 0.48, p = 0.629; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-1.02, 0.18], t(388) = -1.36, p = 0.174; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.05])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.70, 95% CI [-1.57, 0.17], t(388) = -1.58, p = 0.113; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.05])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_behavior
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.89e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.18 (95% CI [9.52, 10.83], t(388) = 30.46, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-1.01, 0.85], t(388) = -0.17, p = 0.866; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.23])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.68, 95% CI [-1.28, -0.08], t(388) = -2.23, p = 0.026; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.34, -0.02])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.95, 0.77], t(388) = -0.21, p = 0.831; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.20])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_cognitive
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.71 (95% CI [8.06, 9.37], t(388) = 26.04, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.52, 1.34], t(388) = 0.86, p = 0.389; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.53, 95% CI [-1.13, 0.07], t(388) = -1.72, p = 0.085; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.02])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.60, 95% CI [-1.47, 0.27], t(388) = -1.35, p = 0.177; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.07])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.29 (95% CI [27.45, 31.13], t(388) = 31.18, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-2.05, 3.16], t(388) = 0.42, p = 0.678; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.30])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.60, 95% CI [-3.14, -0.05], t(388) = -2.03, p = 0.043; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.30, -5.14e-03])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.34, 95% CI [-3.57, 0.88], t(388) = -1.18, p = 0.237; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.08])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | null | 3 | 1,252.668 | 1,264.597 | -623.334 | 1,246.668 | |||
recovery_stage_a | random | 6 | 1,253.052 | 1,276.910 | -620.526 | 1,241.052 | 5.616 | 3 | 0.132 |
recovery_stage_b | null | 3 | 1,916.658 | 1,928.588 | -955.329 | 1,910.658 | |||
recovery_stage_b | random | 6 | 1,916.608 | 1,940.466 | -952.304 | 1,904.608 | 6.051 | 3 | 0.109 |
ras_confidence | null | 3 | 2,398.099 | 2,410.028 | -1,196.049 | 2,392.099 | |||
ras_confidence | random | 6 | 2,384.461 | 2,408.319 | -1,186.231 | 2,372.461 | 19.638 | 3 | 0.000 |
ras_willingness | null | 3 | 1,635.061 | 1,646.990 | -814.531 | 1,629.061 | |||
ras_willingness | random | 6 | 1,637.075 | 1,660.933 | -812.537 | 1,625.075 | 3.986 | 3 | 0.263 |
ras_goal | null | 3 | 1,985.171 | 1,997.100 | -989.585 | 1,979.171 | |||
ras_goal | random | 6 | 1,980.406 | 2,004.264 | -984.203 | 1,968.406 | 10.765 | 3 | 0.013 |
ras_reliance | null | 3 | 1,875.687 | 1,887.616 | -934.844 | 1,869.687 | |||
ras_reliance | random | 6 | 1,869.632 | 1,893.490 | -928.816 | 1,857.632 | 12.055 | 3 | 0.007 |
ras_domination | null | 3 | 1,775.964 | 1,787.893 | -884.982 | 1,769.964 | |||
ras_domination | random | 6 | 1,769.997 | 1,793.855 | -878.999 | 1,757.997 | 11.967 | 3 | 0.007 |
symptom | null | 3 | 2,803.719 | 2,815.648 | -1,398.859 | 2,797.719 | |||
symptom | random | 6 | 2,803.371 | 2,827.229 | -1,395.685 | 2,791.371 | 6.348 | 3 | 0.096 |
slof_work | null | 3 | 2,228.035 | 2,239.964 | -1,111.017 | 2,222.035 | |||
slof_work | random | 6 | 2,230.167 | 2,254.025 | -1,109.084 | 2,218.167 | 3.868 | 3 | 0.276 |
slof_relationship | null | 3 | 2,404.694 | 2,416.623 | -1,199.347 | 2,398.694 | |||
slof_relationship | random | 6 | 2,406.363 | 2,430.221 | -1,197.182 | 2,394.363 | 4.331 | 3 | 0.228 |
satisfaction | null | 3 | 2,579.605 | 2,591.534 | -1,286.803 | 2,573.605 | |||
satisfaction | random | 6 | 2,576.881 | 2,600.739 | -1,282.440 | 2,564.881 | 8.724 | 3 | 0.033 |
mhc_emotional | null | 3 | 2,033.361 | 2,045.290 | -1,013.681 | 2,027.361 | |||
mhc_emotional | random | 6 | 2,036.170 | 2,060.028 | -1,012.085 | 2,024.170 | 3.191 | 3 | 0.363 |
mhc_social | null | 3 | 2,433.869 | 2,445.798 | -1,213.935 | 2,427.869 | |||
mhc_social | random | 6 | 2,435.911 | 2,459.769 | -1,211.955 | 2,423.911 | 3.958 | 3 | 0.266 |
mhc_psychological | null | 3 | 2,550.589 | 2,562.518 | -1,272.295 | 2,544.589 | |||
mhc_psychological | random | 6 | 2,551.580 | 2,575.438 | -1,269.790 | 2,539.580 | 5.009 | 3 | 0.171 |
resilisnce | null | 3 | 2,219.184 | 2,231.113 | -1,106.592 | 2,213.184 | |||
resilisnce | random | 6 | 2,204.832 | 2,228.690 | -1,096.416 | 2,192.832 | 20.352 | 3 | 0.000 |
social_provision | null | 3 | 1,856.469 | 1,868.398 | -925.234 | 1,850.469 | |||
social_provision | random | 6 | 1,853.511 | 1,877.369 | -920.756 | 1,841.511 | 8.958 | 3 | 0.030 |
els_value_living | null | 3 | 1,950.985 | 1,962.914 | -972.493 | 1,944.985 | |||
els_value_living | random | 6 | 1,948.014 | 1,971.872 | -968.007 | 1,936.014 | 8.972 | 3 | 0.030 |
els_life_fulfill | null | 3 | 1,962.181 | 1,974.110 | -978.091 | 1,956.181 | |||
els_life_fulfill | random | 6 | 1,959.358 | 1,983.216 | -973.679 | 1,947.358 | 8.824 | 3 | 0.032 |
els | null | 3 | 2,427.798 | 2,439.727 | -1,210.899 | 2,421.798 | |||
els | random | 6 | 2,422.663 | 2,446.521 | -1,205.332 | 2,410.663 | 11.135 | 3 | 0.011 |
social_connect | null | 3 | 2,762.175 | 2,774.104 | -1,378.088 | 2,756.175 | |||
social_connect | random | 6 | 2,748.494 | 2,772.353 | -1,368.247 | 2,736.494 | 19.681 | 3 | 0.000 |
shs_agency | null | 3 | 2,275.458 | 2,287.387 | -1,134.729 | 2,269.458 | |||
shs_agency | random | 6 | 2,272.975 | 2,296.833 | -1,130.488 | 2,260.975 | 8.483 | 3 | 0.037 |
shs_pathway | null | 3 | 2,137.753 | 2,149.682 | -1,065.877 | 2,131.753 | |||
shs_pathway | random | 6 | 2,130.245 | 2,154.103 | -1,059.123 | 2,118.245 | 13.508 | 3 | 0.004 |
shs | null | 3 | 2,708.942 | 2,720.871 | -1,351.471 | 2,702.942 | |||
shs | random | 6 | 2,702.809 | 2,726.667 | -1,345.404 | 2,690.809 | 12.133 | 3 | 0.007 |
esteem | null | 3 | 1,449.364 | 1,461.293 | -721.682 | 1,443.364 | |||
esteem | random | 6 | 1,454.687 | 1,478.545 | -721.343 | 1,442.687 | 0.677 | 3 | 0.879 |
mlq_search | null | 3 | 2,044.679 | 2,056.608 | -1,019.339 | 2,038.679 | |||
mlq_search | random | 6 | 2,042.708 | 2,066.567 | -1,015.354 | 2,030.708 | 7.970 | 3 | 0.047 |
mlq_presence | null | 3 | 2,190.768 | 2,202.697 | -1,092.384 | 2,184.768 | |||
mlq_presence | random | 6 | 2,186.743 | 2,210.601 | -1,087.371 | 2,174.743 | 10.026 | 3 | 0.018 |
mlq | null | 3 | 2,586.610 | 2,598.539 | -1,290.305 | 2,580.610 | |||
mlq | random | 6 | 2,582.207 | 2,606.065 | -1,285.103 | 2,570.207 | 10.403 | 3 | 0.015 |
empower | null | 3 | 2,218.065 | 2,229.994 | -1,106.032 | 2,212.065 | |||
empower | random | 6 | 2,214.845 | 2,238.703 | -1,101.422 | 2,202.845 | 9.220 | 3 | 0.027 |
ismi_resistance | null | 3 | 1,825.422 | 1,837.351 | -909.711 | 1,819.422 | |||
ismi_resistance | random | 6 | 1,820.473 | 1,844.331 | -904.237 | 1,808.473 | 10.949 | 3 | 0.012 |
ismi_discrimation | null | 3 | 1,971.772 | 1,983.701 | -982.886 | 1,965.772 | |||
ismi_discrimation | random | 6 | 1,965.119 | 1,988.977 | -976.560 | 1,953.119 | 12.653 | 3 | 0.005 |
sss_affective | null | 3 | 2,052.659 | 2,064.588 | -1,023.329 | 2,046.659 | |||
sss_affective | random | 6 | 2,044.708 | 2,068.566 | -1,016.354 | 2,032.708 | 13.951 | 3 | 0.003 |
sss_behavior | null | 3 | 2,056.862 | 2,068.791 | -1,025.431 | 2,050.862 | |||
sss_behavior | random | 6 | 2,052.002 | 2,075.860 | -1,020.001 | 2,040.002 | 10.860 | 3 | 0.013 |
sss_cognitive | null | 3 | 2,064.934 | 2,076.863 | -1,029.467 | 2,058.934 | |||
sss_cognitive | random | 6 | 2,055.474 | 2,079.332 | -1,021.737 | 2,043.474 | 15.461 | 3 | 0.001 |
sss | null | 3 | 2,855.236 | 2,867.165 | -1,424.618 | 2,849.236 | |||
sss | random | 6 | 2,844.574 | 2,868.432 | -1,416.287 | 2,832.574 | 16.662 | 3 | 0.001 |
Post hoc analysis
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
recovery_stage_a | 1st | 125 | 3.20 ± 1.21 | 125 | 3.07 ± 1.21 | 0.404 | 0.136 | ||
recovery_stage_a | 2nd | 75 | 3.24 ± 1.18 | -0.042 | 69 | 3.42 ± 1.17 | -0.373 | 0.350 | -0.194 |
recovery_stage_b | 1st | 125 | 17.88 ± 3.04 | 125 | 17.80 ± 3.04 | 0.835 | 0.046 | ||
recovery_stage_b | 2nd | 75 | 17.72 ± 2.76 | 0.094 | 69 | 18.47 ± 2.72 | -0.385 | 0.099 | -0.433 |
ras_confidence | 1st | 125 | 29.69 ± 5.69 | 125 | 30.02 ± 5.69 | 0.641 | -0.115 | ||
ras_confidence | 2nd | 75 | 30.43 ± 5.04 | -0.252 | 69 | 32.02 ± 4.96 | -0.681 | 0.056 | -0.544 |
ras_willingness | 1st | 125 | 11.62 ± 2.09 | 125 | 11.66 ± 2.09 | 0.904 | -0.025 | ||
ras_willingness | 2nd | 75 | 11.70 ± 1.92 | -0.055 | 69 | 12.05 ± 1.90 | -0.308 | 0.264 | -0.277 |
ras_goal | 1st | 125 | 17.18 ± 3.32 | 125 | 17.53 ± 3.32 | 0.413 | -0.184 | ||
ras_goal | 2nd | 75 | 17.51 ± 2.99 | -0.176 | 69 | 18.40 ± 2.95 | -0.468 | 0.074 | -0.477 |
ras_reliance | 1st | 125 | 13.14 ± 2.93 | 125 | 13.33 ± 2.93 | 0.620 | -0.118 | ||
ras_reliance | 2nd | 75 | 13.41 ± 2.61 | -0.170 | 69 | 14.15 ± 2.57 | -0.526 | 0.088 | -0.474 |
ras_domination | 1st | 125 | 9.95 ± 2.44 | 125 | 9.56 ± 2.44 | 0.205 | 0.248 | ||
ras_domination | 2nd | 75 | 9.98 ± 2.27 | -0.018 | 69 | 10.45 ± 2.25 | -0.560 | 0.219 | -0.294 |
symptom | 1st | 125 | 31.50 ± 9.82 | 125 | 30.21 ± 9.82 | 0.301 | 0.266 | ||
symptom | 2nd | 75 | 30.40 ± 8.62 | 0.226 | 69 | 28.81 ± 8.47 | 0.289 | 0.265 | 0.329 |
slof_work | 1st | 125 | 22.06 ± 4.59 | 125 | 22.06 ± 4.59 | 0.989 | 0.003 | ||
slof_work | 2nd | 75 | 22.38 ± 4.12 | -0.126 | 69 | 22.79 ± 4.06 | -0.293 | 0.547 | -0.164 |
slof_relationship | 1st | 125 | 24.50 ± 5.75 | 125 | 25.34 ± 5.75 | 0.249 | -0.268 | ||
slof_relationship | 2nd | 75 | 24.47 ± 5.16 | 0.011 | 69 | 26.06 ± 5.08 | -0.230 | 0.062 | -0.510 |
satisfaction | 1st | 125 | 19.66 ± 7.24 | 125 | 21.03 ± 7.24 | 0.136 | -0.363 | ||
satisfaction | 2nd | 75 | 20.60 ± 6.43 | -0.248 | 69 | 22.23 ± 6.32 | -0.317 | 0.126 | -0.432 |
mhc_emotional | 1st | 125 | 10.65 ± 3.73 | 125 | 11.00 ± 3.73 | 0.456 | -0.195 | ||
mhc_emotional | 2nd | 75 | 11.06 ± 3.27 | -0.227 | 69 | 11.26 ± 3.20 | -0.141 | 0.715 | -0.109 |
mhc_social | 1st | 125 | 15.13 ± 6.12 | 125 | 15.13 ± 6.12 | 1.000 | 0.000 | ||
mhc_social | 2nd | 75 | 15.83 ± 5.40 | -0.230 | 69 | 15.83 ± 5.30 | -0.227 | 0.993 | 0.002 |
mhc_psychological | 1st | 125 | 21.55 ± 7.08 | 125 | 21.87 ± 7.08 | 0.721 | -0.090 | ||
mhc_psychological | 2nd | 75 | 22.62 ± 6.25 | -0.298 | 69 | 22.59 ± 6.14 | -0.201 | 0.979 | 0.008 |
resilisnce | 1st | 125 | 16.18 ± 4.39 | 125 | 16.94 ± 4.39 | 0.172 | -0.303 | ||
resilisnce | 2nd | 75 | 16.96 ± 3.98 | -0.314 | 69 | 18.46 ± 3.92 | -0.608 | 0.024 | -0.598 |
social_provision | 1st | 125 | 13.17 ± 2.82 | 125 | 13.91 ± 2.82 | 0.038 | -0.465 | ||
social_provision | 2nd | 75 | 13.01 ± 2.55 | 0.097 | 69 | 14.25 ± 2.51 | -0.209 | 0.004 | -0.772 |
els_value_living | 1st | 125 | 16.76 ± 3.20 | 125 | 17.15 ± 3.20 | 0.334 | -0.222 | ||
els_value_living | 2nd | 75 | 17.13 ± 2.88 | -0.210 | 69 | 17.85 ± 2.84 | -0.393 | 0.134 | -0.406 |
els_life_fulfill | 1st | 125 | 12.41 ± 3.32 | 125 | 13.10 ± 3.32 | 0.098 | -0.407 | ||
els_life_fulfill | 2nd | 75 | 12.68 ± 2.94 | -0.157 | 69 | 13.68 ± 2.89 | -0.335 | 0.040 | -0.585 |
els | 1st | 125 | 29.17 ± 6.05 | 125 | 30.26 ± 6.05 | 0.157 | -0.364 | ||
els | 2nd | 75 | 29.82 ± 5.32 | -0.219 | 69 | 31.51 ± 5.22 | -0.421 | 0.055 | -0.567 |
social_connect | 1st | 125 | 27.88 ± 9.23 | 125 | 26.66 ± 9.23 | 0.299 | 0.274 | ||
social_connect | 2nd | 75 | 27.58 ± 8.07 | 0.068 | 69 | 23.64 ± 7.92 | 0.682 | 0.003 | 0.888 |
shs_agency | 1st | 125 | 13.84 ± 5.05 | 125 | 14.85 ± 5.05 | 0.116 | -0.416 | ||
shs_agency | 2nd | 75 | 14.25 ± 4.41 | -0.167 | 69 | 15.66 ± 4.33 | -0.337 | 0.052 | -0.586 |
shs_pathway | 1st | 125 | 15.33 ± 4.09 | 125 | 16.34 ± 4.09 | 0.052 | -0.466 | ||
shs_pathway | 2nd | 75 | 15.99 ± 3.64 | -0.307 | 69 | 17.17 ± 3.58 | -0.385 | 0.051 | -0.545 |
shs | 1st | 125 | 29.17 ± 8.71 | 125 | 31.18 ± 8.71 | 0.068 | -0.481 | ||
shs | 2nd | 75 | 30.24 ± 7.61 | -0.256 | 69 | 32.82 ± 7.47 | -0.391 | 0.041 | -0.617 |
esteem | 1st | 125 | 12.80 ± 1.58 | 125 | 12.73 ± 1.58 | 0.719 | 0.061 | ||
esteem | 2nd | 75 | 12.67 ± 1.52 | 0.114 | 69 | 12.68 ± 1.51 | 0.043 | 0.963 | -0.010 |
mlq_search | 1st | 125 | 14.36 ± 3.46 | 125 | 15.08 ± 3.46 | 0.101 | -0.326 | ||
mlq_search | 2nd | 75 | 15.26 ± 3.21 | -0.405 | 69 | 15.18 ± 3.18 | -0.045 | 0.886 | 0.035 |
mlq_presence | 1st | 125 | 13.15 ± 4.26 | 125 | 13.62 ± 4.26 | 0.389 | -0.185 | ||
mlq_presence | 2nd | 75 | 14.08 ± 3.88 | -0.370 | 69 | 14.44 ± 3.83 | -0.329 | 0.574 | -0.145 |
mlq | 1st | 125 | 27.51 ± 6.99 | 125 | 28.70 ± 6.99 | 0.181 | -0.283 | ||
mlq | 2nd | 75 | 29.33 ± 6.40 | -0.435 | 69 | 29.63 ± 6.32 | -0.222 | 0.783 | -0.070 |
empower | 1st | 125 | 18.85 ± 4.53 | 125 | 19.38 ± 4.53 | 0.358 | -0.217 | ||
empower | 2nd | 75 | 19.79 ± 4.05 | -0.387 | 69 | 20.05 ± 3.99 | -0.275 | 0.702 | -0.105 |
ismi_resistance | 1st | 125 | 14.36 ± 2.56 | 125 | 14.35 ± 2.56 | 0.980 | 0.005 | ||
ismi_resistance | 2nd | 75 | 14.66 ± 2.42 | -0.170 | 69 | 15.23 ± 2.40 | -0.498 | 0.156 | -0.324 |
ismi_discrimation | 1st | 125 | 11.79 ± 3.10 | 125 | 11.70 ± 3.10 | 0.823 | 0.043 | ||
ismi_discrimation | 2nd | 75 | 11.33 ± 2.91 | 0.225 | 69 | 10.63 ± 2.88 | 0.519 | 0.150 | 0.337 |
sss_affective | 1st | 125 | 10.40 ± 3.67 | 125 | 10.62 ± 3.67 | 0.630 | -0.116 | ||
sss_affective | 2nd | 75 | 9.98 ± 3.27 | 0.216 | 69 | 9.50 ± 3.22 | 0.578 | 0.376 | 0.247 |
sss_behavior | 1st | 125 | 10.18 ± 3.74 | 125 | 10.10 ± 3.74 | 0.866 | 0.042 | ||
sss_behavior | 2nd | 75 | 9.50 ± 3.31 | 0.354 | 69 | 9.32 ± 3.25 | 0.403 | 0.751 | 0.091 |
sss_cognitive | 1st | 125 | 8.71 ± 3.74 | 125 | 9.12 ± 3.74 | 0.389 | -0.210 | ||
sss_cognitive | 2nd | 75 | 8.18 ± 3.32 | 0.273 | 69 | 7.99 ± 3.26 | 0.582 | 0.728 | 0.098 |
sss | 1st | 125 | 29.29 ± 10.50 | 125 | 29.84 ± 10.50 | 0.678 | -0.112 | ||
sss | 2nd | 75 | 27.69 ± 9.14 | 0.324 | 69 | 26.90 ± 8.97 | 0.596 | 0.601 | 0.160 |
Between group
recovery_stage_a
1st
t(351.37) = -0.83, p = 0.404, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-0.43 to 0.17)
2st
t(389.87) = 0.94, p = 0.350, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.20 to 0.57)
recovery_stage_b
1st
t(301.77) = -0.21, p = 0.835, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-0.84 to 0.68)
2st
t(385.18) = 1.65, p = 0.099, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.14 to 1.65)
ras_confidence
1st
t(290.60) = 0.47, p = 0.641, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.08 to 1.75)
2st
t(378.25) = 1.91, p = 0.056, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-0.04 to 3.23)
ras_willingness
1st
t(311.08) = 0.12, p = 0.904, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.49 to 0.55)
2st
t(388.03) = 1.12, p = 0.264, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.27 to 0.98)
ras_goal
1st
t(299.59) = 0.82, p = 0.413, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.48 to 1.17)
2st
t(384.19) = 1.79, p = 0.074, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.09 to 1.86)
ras_reliance
1st
t(293.68) = 0.50, p = 0.620, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.55 to 0.91)
2st
t(380.68) = 1.71, p = 0.088, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.11 to 1.59)
ras_domination
1st
t(318.38) = -1.27, p = 0.205, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-1.00 to 0.22)
2st
t(389.18) = 1.23, p = 0.219, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.28 to 1.21)
symptom
1st
t(286.51) = -1.04, p = 0.301, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-3.73 to 1.16)
2st
t(374.24) = -1.12, p = 0.265, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-4.39 to 1.21)
slof_work
1st
t(296.53) = -0.01, p = 0.989, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.15 to 1.14)
2st
t(382.54) = 0.60, p = 0.547, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.93 to 1.75)
slof_relationship
1st
t(295.81) = 1.15, p = 0.249, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.59 to 2.27)
2st
t(382.10) = 1.87, p = 0.062, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-0.08 to 3.27)
satisfaction
1st
t(291.46) = 1.49, p = 0.136, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.43 to 3.17)
2st
t(378.97) = 1.53, p = 0.126, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.46 to 3.72)
mhc_emotional
1st
t(284.89) = 0.75, p = 0.456, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.58 to 1.28)
2st
t(372.35) = 0.37, p = 0.715, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-0.86 to 1.26)
mhc_social
1st
t(288.21) = 0.00, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-1.52 to 1.52)
2st
t(376.02) = -0.01, p = 0.993, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.76 to 1.75)
mhc_psychological
1st
t(288.68) = 0.36, p = 0.721, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.44 to 2.08)
2st
t(376.48) = -0.03, p = 0.979, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-2.06 to 2.00)
resilisnce
1st
t(301.24) = 1.37, p = 0.172, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.33 to 1.85)
2st
t(384.95) = 2.27, p = 0.024, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (0.20 to 2.79)
social_provision
1st
t(300.61) = 2.09, p = 0.038, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (0.04 to 1.45)
2st
t(384.67) = 2.93, p = 0.004, Cohen d = -0.77, 95% CI (0.40 to 2.06)
els_value_living
1st
t(297.15) = 0.97, p = 0.334, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.41 to 1.19)
2st
t(382.90) = 1.50, p = 0.134, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.22 to 1.65)
els_life_fulfill
1st
t(290.43) = 1.66, p = 0.098, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.13 to 1.52)
2st
t(378.10) = 2.06, p = 0.040, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (0.04 to 1.96)
els
1st
t(286.56) = 1.42, p = 0.157, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.42 to 2.60)
2st
t(374.29) = 1.92, p = 0.055, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-0.04 to 3.42)
social_connect
1st
t(284.38) = -1.04, p = 0.299, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-3.51 to 1.08)
2st
t(371.73) = -2.95, p = 0.003, Cohen d = 0.89, 95% CI (-6.56 to -1.32)
shs_agency
1st
t(284.37) = 1.58, p = 0.116, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.25 to 2.27)
2st
t(371.72) = 1.95, p = 0.052, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (-0.01 to 2.85)
shs_pathway
1st
t(293.01) = 1.95, p = 0.052, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.01 to 2.03)
2st
t(380.19) = 1.95, p = 0.051, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-0.01 to 2.36)
shs
1st
t(284.50) = 1.83, p = 0.068, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.15 to 4.18)
2st
t(371.87) = 2.05, p = 0.041, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (0.11 to 5.06)
esteem
1st
t(343.93) = -0.36, p = 0.719, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-0.46 to 0.32)
2st
t(389.97) = 0.05, p = 0.963, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.49 to 0.51)
mlq_search
1st
t(316.24) = 1.64, p = 0.101, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.14 to 1.58)
2st
t(388.91) = -0.14, p = 0.886, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.13 to 0.97)
mlq_presence
1st
t(304.86) = 0.86, p = 0.389, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.60 to 1.52)
2st
t(386.35) = 0.56, p = 0.574, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.90 to 1.63)
mlq
1st
t(307.39) = 1.34, p = 0.181, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.56 to 2.92)
2st
t(387.13) = 0.28, p = 0.783, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.79 to 2.38)
empower
1st
t(294.53) = 0.92, p = 0.358, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.60 to 1.66)
2st
t(381.26) = 0.38, p = 0.702, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.06 to 1.57)
ismi_resistance
1st
t(328.74) = -0.02, p = 0.980, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-0.64 to 0.63)
2st
t(389.87) = 1.42, p = 0.156, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.22 to 1.36)
ismi_discrimation
1st
t(322.95) = -0.22, p = 0.823, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.86 to 0.68)
2st
t(389.59) = -1.44, p = 0.150, Cohen d = 0.34, 95% CI (-1.65 to 0.25)
sss_affective
1st
t(292.93) = 0.48, p = 0.630, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.69 to 1.14)
2st
t(380.13) = -0.89, p = 0.376, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-1.54 to 0.58)
sss_behavior
1st
t(290.11) = -0.17, p = 0.866, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.01 to 0.85)
2st
t(377.82) = -0.32, p = 0.751, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-1.25 to 0.90)
sss_cognitive
1st
t(291.00) = 0.86, p = 0.389, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.52 to 1.34)
2st
t(378.59) = -0.35, p = 0.728, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-1.27 to 0.89)
sss
1st
t(282.69) = 0.42, p = 0.678, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-2.06 to 3.17)
2st
t(369.52) = -0.52, p = 0.601, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-3.76 to 2.18)
Within treatment group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(190.97) = 2.35, p = 0.040, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (0.06 to 0.65)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(166.11) = 2.34, p = 0.041, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (0.11 to 1.24)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(161.03) = 4.12, p = 0.000, Cohen d = -0.68, 95% CI (1.04 to 2.96)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(170.43) = 1.89, p = 0.122, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.02 to 0.81)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(165.11) = 2.85, p = 0.010, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (0.27 to 1.48)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(162.42) = 3.19, p = 0.003, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (0.31 to 1.33)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(173.88) = 3.45, p = 0.001, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (0.38 to 1.39)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(159.19) = -1.74, p = 0.166, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-2.98 to 0.18)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(163.71) = 1.78, p = 0.154, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.08 to 1.55)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(163.39) = 1.40, p = 0.329, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.30 to 1.74)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(161.41) = 1.92, p = 0.113, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.03 to 2.43)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(158.46) = 0.85, p = 0.790, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.34 to 0.85)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(159.95) = 1.37, p = 0.343, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.31 to 1.71)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(160.16) = 1.22, p = 0.452, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.45 to 1.89)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(165.87) = 3.70, p = 0.001, Cohen d = -0.61, 95% CI (0.71 to 2.34)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(165.58) = 1.27, p = 0.409, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.18 to 0.85)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(164.00) = 2.39, p = 0.036, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (0.12 to 1.27)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(160.95) = 2.03, p = 0.089, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (0.01 to 1.13)
els
1st vs 2st
t(159.21) = 2.54, p = 0.024, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (0.28 to 2.23)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(158.23) = -4.11, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.68, 95% CI (-4.48 to -1.57)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(158.23) = 2.03, p = 0.088, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (0.02 to 1.61)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(162.12) = 2.33, p = 0.042, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (0.13 to 1.54)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(158.28) = 2.36, p = 0.039, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (0.27 to 3.01)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(186.82) = -0.27, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.42 to 0.32)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(172.86) = 0.28, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-0.61 to 0.81)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(167.53) = 2.01, p = 0.092, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (0.02 to 1.63)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(168.71) = 1.36, p = 0.352, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.42 to 2.28)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(162.80) = 1.67, p = 0.194, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.12 to 1.46)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(178.94) = 3.09, p = 0.005, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (0.32 to 1.44)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(176.09) = -3.21, p = 0.003, Cohen d = 0.52, 95% CI (-1.73 to -0.41)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(162.08) = -3.50, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.58, 95% CI (-1.75 to -0.49)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(160.81) = -2.44, p = 0.032, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-1.40 to -0.15)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(161.21) = -3.52, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.58, 95% CI (-1.76 to -0.50)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(157.47) = -3.59, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.60, 95% CI (-4.56 to -1.32)
Within control group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(185.24) = 0.28, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-0.25 to 0.32)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(163.37) = -0.60, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-0.71 to 0.38)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(158.88) = 1.58, p = 0.230, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.18 to 1.66)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(167.17) = 0.35, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.33 to 0.47)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(162.49) = 1.11, p = 0.538, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.26 to 0.91)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(160.12) = 1.07, p = 0.569, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.22 to 0.76)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(170.21) = 0.12, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.46 to 0.52)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(157.26) = -1.42, p = 0.316, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-2.62 to 0.43)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(161.25) = 0.80, p = 0.852, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.47 to 1.10)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(160.97) = -0.07, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.02 to 0.94)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(159.23) = 1.56, p = 0.242, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.25 to 2.12)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(156.61) = 1.42, p = 0.313, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.16 to 0.98)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(157.93) = 1.44, p = 0.302, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.26 to 1.67)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(158.12) = 1.87, p = 0.126, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.06 to 2.19)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(163.15) = 1.98, p = 0.098, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (0.00 to 1.57)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(162.90) = -0.62, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-0.65 to 0.34)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(161.50) = 1.32, p = 0.375, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.18 to 0.92)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(158.81) = 0.99, p = 0.650, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.27 to 0.81)
els
1st vs 2st
t(157.28) = 1.37, p = 0.343, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.29 to 1.59)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(156.41) = -0.43, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-1.70 to 1.10)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(156.41) = 1.05, p = 0.593, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.36 to 1.17)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(159.85) = 1.93, p = 0.111, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.02 to 1.34)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(156.46) = 1.60, p = 0.222, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.25 to 2.39)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(181.58) = -0.74, p = 0.923, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-0.49 to 0.22)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(169.32) = 2.58, p = 0.021, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (0.21 to 1.58)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(164.62) = 2.35, p = 0.040, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (0.15 to 1.71)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(165.65) = 2.76, p = 0.013, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (0.52 to 3.13)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(160.45) = 2.44, p = 0.032, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (0.18 to 1.70)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(174.66) = 1.09, p = 0.551, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.24 to 0.84)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(172.15) = -1.44, p = 0.304, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-1.10 to 0.17)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(159.81) = -1.36, p = 0.353, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-1.03 to 0.19)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(158.69) = -2.23, p = 0.055, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-1.28 to -0.08)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(159.04) = -1.72, p = 0.175, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-1.14 to 0.08)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(155.74) = -2.03, p = 0.089, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-3.16 to -0.04)
Plot
